Slashdot Mirror
Backlash as EMI Hunts Down the Grey Album
An anonymous reader writes "DJ Danger Mouse's The Grey Album, a remix of Jay-Z's Black Album and the Beatles White Album has become a online music sensation, even getting reviewed in Rolling Stone though only 3,000 CDs were ever made. Now EMI, which controls the Beatles copyright, is trying to shut the album down. They've sent cease and desist letters to Danger Mouse, a handful of record stores, and websites that have hosted the songs. Wired News is reporting on the backlash that has ensued, led by anti-music industry group Downhill Battle, who insists that the major record labels are stifling creativity."
I have always wondered what would happen when the IP mafia went too far. A common fiction theme is carrying some oddity to to an extreme that is not possible. Sometimes it seems to be laziness, other times intentional.
Slashdot itself is full of these extreme types of worry. People get all het up over copyright holders locking down 1+1=2 (or Intel's version, 1+1=1.999998; perhaps Intel was merely ahead of its time, eh?), and the world of creativity coming to an end, where it is not possible to write a program without every line infringing somebody's copyright or patent. It always seemed a silly take to me. But this has all been worry for nothing. The more any system gets out of whack, the more natural corrections pop up. The farther out of whack, the more intense the corrections.
I like the looks of this, we have more and more natural corrections all the time, little ones and bigger ones. GPL is a natural correction, quite ingenious, the ultimate hack to make a system subvert itself. Remixes like this are great, they put the big labels on notice that they can't control everything. Kazaa is helping.
Let the big boys waste their time and money on copyrights and patents. When they control too much, everyone else will ignore them, just as they do with Kazaa, just as they do with this album. These big boys will go the way of all dinosaurs.
Infuriate left and right
If the copyright system worked as it was designed to, this wouldn't even be an issue. Does anybody seriously claim that the Beatles wouldn't have made the White Album if they thought that it wouldn't be profitable almost 40 years later?
If the copyright system worked as it should do, this album would have entered the public domain at least a decade ago, opening it up to this kind of reinterpretation without fear of lawsuits or special permission from anybody. The Beatles have been rewarded for their contribution to the public domain substantially, and so has the record company that signed them. They don't deserve to have a stranglehold on it any more.
I always like the 14 years renewable for 14 more. It allowed a broader scope of protection for an author's works if he were still actually making money from it and cared to file again, but fast tracked it into the public domain if nobody thought enough of it to refile.
It seemed a fair compromise, even with the rights of the public, since the maximum span of 28 years isn't really that long.
Anything more than 30 really isn't reasonable. Write another decent song/book/movie if you want more money.
The rest of us actually have to work every day too, it won't kill you.
KFG
And once again a big corporation forgets the primary rule of the internet -- I had never heard of this thing, and probably wouldn't be interested in it until EMI made a big deal of trying to destroy it. Now I fucking want it
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
In another interesting twist, it appears that EMI is taking a legal approach that, under copyright law, might allow EMI and Roc-A-Fella to release the album on their own and not pay DJ Danger Mouse a penny.
... A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ''derivative work''.
The twist comes from the definition of derivative works in the copyright law. I'll start with the definition:
17 USC 101
Ok. So far so good. The definition of derivative works appears to give DJ Danger Mouse copyright protection over the use of his remix. In other words, if EMI wanted to release the album, they would have to negotiate with DJ Danger Mouse.
However, take a look at section 103(a):
17 USC 103 (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.
The notes on the Cornell site explain:
The second part of the sentence that makes up section 103(a) deals with the status of a compilation or derivative work unlawfully employing preexisting copyrighted material. In providing that protection does not extend to ''any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully,'' the bill prevents an infringer from benefiting, through copyright protection, from committing an unlawful act, but preserves protection for those parts of the work that do not employ the preexisting work. Thus, an unauthorized translation of a novel could not be copyrighted at all, but the owner of copyright in an anthology of poetry could sue someone who infringed the whole anthology, even though the infringer proves that publication of one of the poems was unauthorized. Under this provision, copyright could be obtained as long as the use of the preexisting work was not ''unlawful,'' even though the consent of the copyright owner had not been obtained. For instance, the unauthorized reproduction of a work might be ''lawful'' under the doctrine of fair use or an applicable foreign law, and if so the work incorporating it could be copyrighted
Since, by his own admission, every single second of the Grey Album is sampled from one of the two source albums, DJ Danger Mouse has absolutely no copyright claim to any of his own creation.
Of course, once DJ Danger Mouse is stripped of his copyright interest in his own creation, there is no legal barrier to EMI and Roc-A-Fella simply releasing the album, because they own the underlying copyrights to the source albums.
Whether or not they do this, it is interesting that copyright law has the effect of excluding remixers from any copyright protection whatsoever over their own work. It appears that by taking legal action to shut the album down, EMI is not merely seeking to enforce their copyright as they claim. They are laying the groundwork to deny copyright protection to DJ Danger Mouse over his own creative work and steal his album. They are in effect muscling him out of his own copyrights over his own work.
I worked at a record label for the better part of the 90's and our licensing department had a hell of a time dealing with sample clearances.
The bottom line is this: there are a few artists who it is just 'known' that you are never going to ever in a billion years be allowed to sample, for any reason whatsoever:
#1: The Beatles
#2: The Rolling Stones
Probably numerous other ones. To further clarify: we're mostly talking 'Lennon and McCartney' Beatles. They as songwriters have always been pretty firm about it: not allowed. So the label / publishing companies always enforce this. Contrary to what this discussion is heading into, the label would be bound by whatever Paul McCartney would prefer rather than whatever the label would prefer, and this is likely due to the unbelievably unique position The Beatles hold in the annals of pop music. Even if the label felt it was a great idea, they'd still mostly have to go back to Lennon's estate (ie: Yoko) and Mr. McCartney just to be sure.
You can bet that the remaining members have likely heard this recording, not just the label reps.
I hate the way music publishing works. My favorite examples:
How many recent (say 1980's forward) movies which take place in the 60's can you name that *ever* contain a Beatles recording? Specifically a Lennon/McCartney recording? The Big Chill bases itself in 60's motown but apparently they desperately wanted Beatles galore in it. No go.
Ferris Beuller's Day Off. No soundtrack recording has ever been released for this film and when I worked in music stores I can tell you: people wanted it. No go again, licensing was prohibitively expensive.
I for one welcome our non-copyright overlords...
ad
Because I can! [Brainrub.com]